Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 17:57:40 +0530 2025:CGHC:32522-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1805 of 2018 [Arising out of judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.18/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.] Neeraj @ Bholu Markam S/o Ghanaram @ Ganesh Markam, aged about 18 years, R/o Sitlapara, Ratnabandha, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O. City Kotwali District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board (14.07.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant herein is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 25.10.2018 2 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,
Facts
in Sessions Trial No. 18/2018, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sentence Conviction Under Section 302 (twice) Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of the IPC of ₹ 200/-(twice); in default of (For committing murder of payment of fine, to further undergo Amrit Bai & Dinesh) rigorous imprisonment for 6 months (twice). Under Section 450 of the Rigorous imprisonment of 3 years IPC and to pay fine of ₹ 100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Under Section 201 of the Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years IPC and to pay fine of ₹ 100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution Case:- 2. Factual matrix of the case is that from the evening of 11.01.2018 at about 4:00 pm to 12.01.2018 at about 4:30 pm, at 3 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 Ratnabandha Basti, Gaura Chaura, Police Station City Kotwali, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, the appellant herein trespassed into the house of the Amrit Bai and assaulted Amrit Bai and Dinesh Naagarchi by sharp edged weapon axe, by which they suffered grievous injuries and died. Thereafter, to screen himself from the offence, burnt the handle of the axe and threw the remaining part of the axe and mobile into the gutter/canal and mud, respectively. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that on 12.01.2018, Savita (PW-1), daughter of Amrit (deceased) and sister of Dinesh (deceased), reported the matter to the police that on 11.01.2018 at about 12:30 pm, her mother Amrit came to her house and had lunch, thereafter in the evening at about 4:00 pm she (deceased) went to her home. On the next date i.e. 12.01.2018 at about 4:30 pm when she (PW-1) had gone towards the house of her mother Amrit, Roshni (PW-9), neighbour of the deceased, informed her (PW-1) that she did not see her mother since morning, then she (PW-1) knocked the door of the house of her mother and also tried to open the door which was locked from inside, but the same was not opened, thereafter, she went to the roof of 4 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 Chandrahas (PW-15), neighbour of the deceased, and peeped inside the house of Amrit, then she saw the dead body of her mother Amrit lying on the floor and also saw the dead body of her brother Dinesh lying on the bed and also saw cut injuries on head and face of the deceased persons, pursuant to which merg intimations vide Exs.P/1 & P/2 and FIR vide Ex.P/3 were registered against unknown person. Crime details form and nazari naksha were prepared vide Exs.P/4 & P/10, respectively. Spot panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Inquest proceedings (Exs.P/6 & 7) were conducted and the dead bodies of the deceased persons were sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report of deceased Amrit (Ex.P/35) conducted by
Legal Reasoning
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra4 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 3 (1984) 4 SCC 116 4 (1973) 2 SCC 793 11 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 13.The trial Court has found the following incriminating circumstances against the appellant on which the appellant’s conviction is based:- आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नी(cid:5)रोज उ्ቛ(cid:10) भो(cid:3)लू(cid:13) मरोका(cid:16)म का(cid:17) बहनी नीवि(cid:21)ता(cid:16) मरोका(cid:16)म ए(cid:21)(cid:24) म(cid:25)ताका “1- वि(cid:26)नी(cid:27)श नी(cid:16)गरोची(cid:5) का(cid:27) मध्य ቚኔ(cid:27)म ቚኔसं(cid:24)ग था(cid:16)। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नी(cid:5)रोज उ्ቛ(cid:10) भो(cid:3)लू(cid:13) मरोका(cid:16)म का(cid:27) ቛኋ(cid:16)रो(cid:16) अपीनी(cid:27) विमኘ᭖( का(cid:27) ब(cid:5)ची म(cid:25)ताका 2- वि(cid:26)नी(cid:27)श नीगरोची(cid:5) का(cid:3) संबका सिसंखा(cid:16)नी(cid:27) का(cid:17) ब(cid:16)ता काहनी(cid:16)। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नी(cid:5)रोज उ्ቛ(cid:10) भो(cid:3)लू(cid:13) मरोका(cid:16)म का(cid:27) चीप्पीलू का(cid:27) 3- पीरो पी(cid:16)य(cid:16) ज(cid:16)नी(cid:16)। विनीश(cid:16)नी घटनी(cid:16) स्थालू 4- का1 ल्ह(cid:16)़ቡ(cid:5), आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) का(cid:27) म(cid:27)म(cid:3)रो/डम काथानी का(cid:17) विनीश(cid:16)नी(cid:26)(cid:3)ह(cid:5) पीरो घटनी(cid:16) म/ ቚኔय1्ሹ घटनी(cid:16) का(cid:27) संमय पीहनी(cid:27) ह5ए कापी़ቡ(cid:27) (cid:21) म(cid:3)ब(cid:16)ईलू का(cid:17) बरो(cid:16)म(cid:26)ग(cid:5)। 5- म(cid:25)ताकागण अम(cid:25)ता ब(cid:16)ई ए(cid:21)(cid:24) वि(cid:26)नी(cid:27)श नी(cid:16)गरोची(cid:5) का(cid:17) हत्य(cid:16)त्मका म(cid:25)त्य1 ह(cid:3)नी(cid:16)। आरो(cid:3)पी(cid:5) नी(cid:5)रोज उ्ቛ(cid:10) भो(cid:3)लू(cid:13) मरोका(cid:16)म का(cid:27) ቛኋ(cid:16)रो(cid:16) म(cid:25)ताका वि(cid:26)नी(cid:27)श नी(cid:16)गरोची(cid:5) का(cid:3) 6- ज(cid:16)नी सं(cid:27) म(cid:16)रोनी(cid:27) का(cid:17) धमका(cid:17) वि(cid:26)य(cid:16) ज(cid:16)नी(cid:16)।" 14. Now, we will discuss the above-stated incriminating circumstances one by one in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhchand Sarda (supra). 15. The fifth incriminating circumstance which has been found proved by the trial Court is that the death of deceased Amrit Bai and Dinesh was homicidal in nature which we have already held in the foregoing paragraph that the finding with regard to nature of death recorded by the trial Court is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse 12 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court. 16.Incriminating circumstances No.(1), (2) & (6) :- To base the conviction of the appellant, the trial Court has found proved the aforesaid circumstances on the basis of statements of Javed (PW- 7), Abid Ali (PW-8), Omprakash (PW-24) & Ankit Yadav (PW-25). PW-3 Javed, friend of the appellant herein, in his Court statement has stated that when he informed the appellant about the relationship of deceased Dinesh and appellant’s sister, then the appellant told him that he (appellant) will teach lesson to deceased Dinesh. Similarly, PW-8 Abid Ali, in his statement before the Court has stated that when he informed the appellant about the relationship between deceased Dinesh and his (appellant) sister, the appellant started following deceased Dinesh and 1-1 ½ month prior to the incident when he (PW-8) stood outside of his house, he saw the appellant threatening deceased Dinesh. Also, PW-24 Omprakash & PW-25 Ankit Yadav, in their statements before the Court have stated that the appellant admitted before them that he will teach lesson to deceased Dinesh as the deceased and appellant’s sister were in 13 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 relationship. On going through the statements of the witnesses, it appears that deceased Dinesh and appellant’s sister were in relationship; due to which the appellant stated before his friends that he will teach lesson to deceased Dinesh and also threatened, as such, the appellant has also a strong motive to commit the offence. 17. Incriminating circumstances No.(3) & (4):- Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/11), bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. axe; blood stained clothes of the appellant and mobile of deceased Dinesh were seized. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/54) on the weapon of offence i.e. axe (Article G), on the jeans pant (Article H) and gloves (Article I) of the appellant human blood was found and on the jacket (Article K) and t-shirt (Article L) of the appellant human blood of group O was found. Further in the FSL report (Ex.P/55), the marks which were found on the spot (Article Q1, Q2 & Q3) are similar to the mark of the appellant’s right slipper (Article PR). Moreover, the DNA report (Ex.P/37) was also found positive as the DNA sample generated from vaginal slide of deceased Amrit is found matched with the 14 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 samples of axe and t-shirt of the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC has failed to explain as to how and under what circumstances human blood was found on the axe as well as on his clothes. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly found proved the incriminating circumstances which implicate the appellant in offences in question and we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court which is based on evidence available on record. Conclusion:- 18.In that view of the matter, the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for offences mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment and we do not find any merit in the instant appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. 19. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing the appellant that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the 15 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ankit
Arguments
Dr. M.A. Nasim (PW-37) and Dr. Smt. Madhuri Wankhede (PW- 30), cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and coma due to extensive injury on the right temporal bone of skull and brain and death was homicidal in nature. Further, as per postmortem report of deceased Dinesh (Ex.P/43A) proved by Dr. M.A. Nasim (PW-37), cause of death was hemorrhagic shock coma due to extensive injury on the occipital part of skull and death was homicidal in nature. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Extra-judicial confession of the 5 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/16. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/11), weapon of offence i.e. axe, clothes of the appellant and mobile phone were seized vide Exs.P/12, P/13 & P/14, respectively. Other articles were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P/8 & 9. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/54), on Articles E (cotton), F (cotton) & J (cap of the appellant) blood was found, whereas, on Articles A (pillow cover), B (plaster soil), C (soil), D (pieces of glass), G (axe), H (jeans pant) and I (gloves) human blood was found and on Articles K (jacket) and L (t-shirt) human blood of “O” group was found. Further, as per FSL report (Ex.P/54), marks of the footwear (Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4) matched with the right sleeper of the appellant (PR). As per the DNA report (Ex.P/37), DNA sample generated from vaginal slide of deceased Amrit Bai Article O (Ex.515) is found matched with the samples of Articles Ex. A(501) i.e. pillow cover, Ex.B(502) i.e. soil), Ex.C(503) i.e. Soil, Ex.G(507) i.e. axe, and Ex. L(512) i.e. t-shirt of the appellant. 4. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court 6 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 40 witnesses and exhibited 70 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submissions of the parties:- 7. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He would also submit that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence of last seen, but there is no evidence of last seen in the 7 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 case and even no one has seen the appellant entering in the house of the deceased. He would further submit that it has come in the evidence that there was love affair between the sister of the appellant and the deceased Dinesh, but the evidence in this regard is not reliable. He would further submit that there is no evidence on record that the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased either in the afternoon or in the night. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash v. State of Karnataka 1 , wherein it has been held that the conviction is not sustainable only on the basis of last seen together. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the vital links in the circumstances and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashish Batham v. State of M.P 2 .,. Therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Marhas and Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsels, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences 1 2 AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1757 (2002) 7 SCC 317 8 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. They would also submit that apart from the evidence of last seen together, the prosecution case rests on an incriminating evidence of human blood found on the weapon of offence i.e. axe and clothes of the appellants as well and also mobile of deceased Dinesh having IMEI No.911589953266947, which were recovered pursuant to disclosure statement of the appellant. They would further submit that it has come in evidence that there was love affair between the sister of the appellant and deceased Dinesh which is the motive of offence behind the crime in question. They would further submit that the appellant was put to certain questions regarding seizure which were made on his memorandum, but he has failed to explain as to how human blood was found on the axe as well as on his clothes. Thus, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled for acquittal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously. 9 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 Discussion & Analysis:- 10. The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem reports (Exs.P/35 & P/43A) proved by Dr. M.A. Nasim (PW-37) and Dr. Smt. Madhuri Wankhede (PW-30) which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased persons? 12. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has found incriminating circumstances established. The five golden principles which constitute panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by their Lordships 10 CRA No. 1805 of 2018 of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 3 in paragraph 153 which state as under:- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.